The post-election chitchat is almost as bad as the campaign itself. What most of us saw on television gave the impression that the support for Kerry was all along the Canadian border or in nearby states, with the bulk of the nation all RED, for Bush, like the map just below:

That map naturally represents the electoral voting that results from our "winner-takes-all" system... he who gets the most votes in a state wins all the electoral votes from that state. The view of our electoral system gives us a grossly distorted picture of our nation's attitudes. That distortion has led many to view the situation as serious enough to suggest that "blue states" should secede and/or become part of Canada, and concern that religious fundamentalism has become widespread.

As I wrote in The polarization of America - part 2 of 2:

We are not a naturally divided nation, as politicians would like us to believe. The purported dichotomy of American politics is no more than an invented polarization created by the major parties each trying to scam us into voting against their opponent. Yes, there are many who HAVE foolishly bought into that scam and now declare themselves D & R party loyalists, but if we add together the number of "independent" voters, the massive number of non-voters, and the advocates of third parties, we have well over half of the voting population who HAVEN'T bought into the Blue/Red voter paintjob.

Someone has gone to a great deal of trouble, for Wikipedia, to color a map by county, showing the popular vote percentages in shades moving from blue to red:

Study that map. You'll find there are a lot of blue counties in red states, and red counties in blue states... and a lot of purple counties where the red-blue split was close. That map doesn't show a divided nation in any real sense. It shows Kerry voters and Bush voters both spread all over the nation, not the divisive and splintered view presented by the electoral college results.

The 2004 Bush victory was anything but a mandate. Bush's 2.86% margin of victory was the smallest percentage in U.S. history for a sitting President. On the other hand, it also was the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach 50% of the popular vote. There really wasn't much change from the 2000 elections.

Why did Bush win? I think the simple answer is that there are simply more Republicans than Democrats. Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote and probably would never had been elected at all if Perot hadn't been involved. Carter got just 50% of the popular vote against Ford, who was tainted as VP under Nixon. I think it's time for Democrats to understand that a clear majority of Americans dislike big-government, socialistic positions.

The War in Iraq, which many Democrats believed should have damned Bush to defeat, did not, probably because Kerry took a me-too position. If you're forced to choose between someone who undertook a war for no good reason and someone who also would have done so, even after knowing it would be disastrous, why choose the latter? Opposition to the war may have substantially reduced the votes that Bush would have otherwise gotten, but Kerry was not an anti-war choice. The War seems to have been a non-deciding issue.

An analysis by the Democratic Washington Monthly magazine resulted in these conclusions about the 2004 election:

Conclusion: religious voters supported Bush heavily, but no more so than in 2000. What's more, they didn't turn out any more strongly than any other group. Religious belief doesn't seem to have made much difference in the election.

Terrorism played a bigger role, mostly by being a more important issue to a lot more people. Bush's actual level of support among people who based their vote primarily on world affairs increased only modestly.

I'm certain that if you could ask every voter to explain their vote, you would find a wide variety of reasons, and very little consensus. Remember, polls offer limited choices and little explanation of what those choices mean, so interpreting their results is guessy. I suspect that no more explanation for the Bush win is required than that Bush was the incumbent.

Still, Americans feel divided. They've listened to the two major parties demonizing each other, and have adopted some of those lies as bolster for their own personal reasons. Those lies and exaggerations, issued very deliberately to inflame and to strengthen loyalty, HAVE been effective in scaring a lot of people into believing that voters for the "other" party are very different, and even dangerous. In that sense, we are a divided nation, but it's a false polarization, not based on the real characteristics or desires of the "other" voters, but rather on the fears generated by two ruthless political parties.

Libertarians are less subject to such fears. Many of us spent time as supporters of one or the other of the major parties, and found convincing reasons to conclude that their policies are destructive. With loyalties to neither major party, we're able to see more clearly that BOTH are deceptive. Many conservatives find that the Republican Party no longer fits them... and remain loyal only to counter Democratic policies they fear. Many liberals find that the Democratic Party no longer fits them... and remain loyal only to counter Republican policies they fear. Libertarians know that the differences between conservative and liberal American citizens are significant, but not polarizing. The two major parties no longer stand by the principles they once did. No longer is the Republican Party one of fiscal conservatism and smaller government. No longer is the Democratic Party one that supports civil rights and protection of individual rights. In both cases, the Libertarians are the ones whose principles demand those things of our government.

When you too finally come to the realization that your party is fear-mongering to keep your vote, and using your support to increase their own strength... at your expense... come on over and investigate an honest party with an integrated set of real principles. It's not a coincidence that those principles are the ones on which the UNITED States was founded and flourished.